I have always thought, and written too, that DYS391 is one of those markers that let me speak about the “mutations around the modal”, because it seems that its values, in the R1b haplogroup (but also elsewhere), turn above all around the values 10 and 11. Rarely there is a mutations for the tangent, and it goes from 11 to 12 (and in some haplotype also 13 or more) or from 10 to 9. Because we cannot know how many times these mutations have happened, we don’t know (in this case but also in others) the number of the mutations. Then I’d exclude this markers, even though it seems to me that 10 is the most ancient value within the most ancient haplotypes of R-L23.As to DYS464, if it is presupposed that the modal of R-L23 was 14-15-16-18, you can see that these haplotypes have had only one mutation on DYS464d or have remained unchanged. But my haplotype (14-14-16-17) would presuppose a mutation of DYS464d from 18 to 17 and then DYS464b from 15 to 14. But also in this case we don’t know (except we reconstruct the haplotype values step by step) how many mutations have happened.

Indeed, we see R-L277 in most places that R-Z2105 is seen but the frequency is not constant and the same is true for R-L584.

In extreme NW Europe, for instance, fewer than 10% of R-Z2105 men seem to be R-L277 whereas in SW Asia it is more than 40%.

Of course by the “Adriano’s spreadsheet” (if one can see it) we already have a picture. If in Middle East 40% are L277+, probably more are L584+, then L277- and L584- are very few, whereas in Italy it seems that very few are L277+ (I know only Manno), none is L584+, then the most part are L277- and L584-. I.e. or L2103/L2105+ or, probably, also some L2103/L2105- or negative for one of them.

I have always thought, and written too, that DYS391 is one of those markers that let me speak about the “mutations around the modal”, because it seems that its values, in the R1b haplogroup (but also elsewhere), turn above all around the values 10 and 11. Rarely there is a mutations for the tangent, and it goes from 11 to 12 (and in some haplotype also 13 or more) or from 10 to 9. Because we cannot know how many times these mutations have happened, we don’t know (in this case but also in others) the number of the mutations. Then I’d exclude this markers, even though it seems to me that 10 is the most ancient value within the most ancient haplotypes of R-L23.As to DYS464, if it is presupposed that the modal of R-L23 was 14-15-16-18, you can see that these haplotypes have had only one mutation on DYS464d or have remained unchanged. But my haplotype (14-14-16-17) would presuppose a mutation of DYS464d from 18 to 17 and then DYS464b from 15 to 14. But also in this case we don’t know (except we reconstruct the haplotype values step by step) how many mutations have happened.

Acekon, I thank for your analysis, but I think you should consider the whole data, and not only the first, which I have said it is where I have more mutations, but above all “around the modal”, as I think having demonstrated a few posts above by comparing my data with those of the Anonymous Brazilian, of the Hui etc.First of all this comparing with my closest relative (15th century MRCA) demonstrates that my DYS392=12 is a recent mutation from 13, that my DYS447=24 is a recent mutation from 25 etc.I think you should compare my data with those, for instance, of these two Armenians and one Englishman and with the modal of all the R-L11 subclades. Probably you would see that my data (apart my DYS636=9 instead of the modal 10) are the closest ones:

I think you should inquire about his origin. Another Indian in the R1b1 FTDNA Project I demonstrated that he belongs to a High Indo-European caste, then his origin is closer to Europe (I have written about this in this forum).

The first Z2105- has appeared on “ht 35 FTDNA Project” [226720], but, for irony, he has all the markers values of the R1b1a2*-s, is put amongst them, but his SNPs say that he is L150+ and Z2105-. Something is wrong.

The first Z2105- has appeared on “ht 35 FTDNA Project” [226720], but, for irony, he has all the markers values of the R1b1a2*-s, is put amongst them, but his SNPs say that he is L150+ and Z2105-. Something is wrong.

Richard, I have written Z2105-. What is important for L150+ is to be Z2105- and not +, because who is - is L150*, then the ancestor. But of course about these cases (of the Jew Fabricant and of the other mentioned by Acekon) something doesn't fit.

Yes, we know from "ht 35 FTDNA Project", but the chase is for -. Very strange these Jews L150+ Z2105-, whereas Fabricant belongs to the Jewish haplotype of R1b1a2*, where they have almost the same values and descend from a very recent introgressed person. Very strange. They are R1b1a2* and not R1b1a2a1/L150+.

The first Z2105- has appeared on “ht 35 FTDNA Project” [226720], but, for irony, he has all the markers values of the R1b1a2*-s, is put amongst them, but his SNPs say that he is L150+ and Z2105-. Something is wrong.

I see you listed FEPAF here. Are they L584 positive? I am awaiting my Z2105 test to see if I should test for L584. I match FEPAF on ysearch at a genetic distance of 4. So, I'm curious to see how we're related, and if I have any other close matches. I've also matched with Czech, Slovak and Hungarians lineage.

I have always thought, and written too, that DYS391 is one of those markers that let me speak about the “mutations around the modal”, because it seems that its values, in the R1b haplogroup (but also elsewhere), turn above all around the values 10 and 11. Rarely there is a mutations for the tangent, and it goes from 11 to 12 (and in some haplotype also 13 or more) or from 10 to 9. Because we cannot know how many times these mutations have happened, we don’t know (in this case but also in others) the number of the mutations. Then I’d exclude this markers, even though it seems to me that 10 is the most ancient value within the most ancient haplotypes of R-L23.As to DYS464, if it is presupposed that the modal of R-L23 was 14-15-16-18, you can see that these haplotypes have had only one mutation on DYS464d or have remained unchanged. But my haplotype (14-14-16-17) would presuppose a mutation of DYS464d from 18 to 17 and then DYS464b from 15 to 14. But also in this case we don’t know (except we reconstruct the haplotype values step by step) how many mutations have happened.

I have always thought, and written too, that DYS391 is one of those markers that let me speak about the “mutations around the modal”, because it seems that its values, in the R1b haplogroup (but also elsewhere), turn above all around the values 10 and 11. Rarely there is a mutations for the tangent, and it goes from 11 to 12 (and in some haplotype also 13 or more) or from 10 to 9. Because we cannot know how many times these mutations have happened, we don’t know (in this case but also in others) the number of the mutations. Then I’d exclude this markers, even though it seems to me that 10 is the most ancient value within the most ancient haplotypes of R-L23.As to DYS464, if it is presupposed that the modal of R-L23 was 14-15-16-18, you can see that these haplotypes have had only one mutation on DYS464d or have remained unchanged. But my haplotype (14-14-16-17) would presuppose a mutation of DYS464d from 18 to 17 and then DYS464b from 15 to 14. But also in this case we don’t know (except we reconstruct the haplotype values step by step) how many mutations have happened.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

Saje, me and a famous English researcher are finding the ancestor of an American woman adopted, but this hasn’t been reached by her mtDNA (in your case the Y) but by 23andMe and its Relative Finder, hoping that amongst the people tested there is some close relatives of you. She found a second cousin and probably we have reached our purpose.About your Y certainly Geno 2.0 will be able to say something interesting, but not to find your father, except that he or a very close relative of his has done the same test.

Geno 2.0 has replaced the deepClade test. The best result for the general research community would be the Geno 2.0 test. For yourself Geno might provide a higher resolution ancestral point of origin but probably nothing that would be genealogically relevant for your immediate paternal line searches. You could look in that geographic area for similar surnames and over time get them tested to see if you can establish a link.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

Thanks. I may take the test. I will not be able to compare my surname as there was an adoption. But I may be able to compare surnames whose Y line I match (I test 67 markers at FamilyTreeDNA) to others and also those that point to a certain geographic area as you mentioned. Then I can trace where my father was born, and see if there are matching surnames from that area.

Seems like Geno 2.0 will also be able to tell nationality; which may also help.

Geno 2.0 has replaced the deepClade test. The best result for the general research community would be the Geno 2.0 test. For yourself Geno might provide a higher resolution ancestral point of origin but probably nothing that would be genealogically relevant for your immediate paternal line searches. You could look in that geographic area for similar surnames and over time get them tested to see if you can establish a link.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

Thanks. I may take the test. I will not be able to compare my surname as there was an adoption. But I may be able to compare surnames whose Y line I match (I test 67 markers at FamilyTreeDNA) to others and also those that point to a certain geographic area as you mentioned. Then I can trace where my father was born, and see if there are matching surnames from that area.

Seems like Geno 2.0 will also be able to tell nationality; which may also help.

Geno 2.0 has replaced the deepClade test. The best result for the general research community would be the Geno 2.0 test. For yourself Geno might provide a higher resolution ancestral point of origin but probably nothing that would be genealogically relevant for your immediate paternal line searches. You could look in that geographic area for similar surnames and over time get them tested to see if you can establish a link.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

I do plan to test L588 and L277. Does Geno 2.0 test for these SNPs? If not, I will test individually at FTDNA.

I hear rumors that FTDNA will offer Geno 2.0 early 2013, so I may wait until then as they already have my sample - that is if they do test for SNPs downstream of Z2105 (that is if I am positive; will know the results within the next week or so).

Can you tell me more information on Eurogenes Euro calculator and Dodecad K12b? I am unaware of their service. Can I share my 67 y-line dna results with them and compare to others in their database? Will they be able to better pinpoint my european ancestry?

Thanks. I may take the test. I will not be able to compare my surname as there was an adoption. But I may be able to compare surnames whose Y line I match (I test 67 markers at FamilyTreeDNA) to others and also those that point to a certain geographic area as you mentioned. Then I can trace where my father was born, and see if there are matching surnames from that area.

Seems like Geno 2.0 will also be able to tell nationality; which may also help.

Geno 2.0 has replaced the deepClade test. The best result for the general research community would be the Geno 2.0 test. For yourself Geno might provide a higher resolution ancestral point of origin but probably nothing that would be genealogically relevant for your immediate paternal line searches. You could look in that geographic area for similar surnames and over time get them tested to see if you can establish a link.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

I do plan to test L588 and L277. Does Geno 2.0 test for these SNPs? If not, I will test individually at FTDNA.

I hear rumors that FTDNA will offer Geno 2.0 early 2013, so I may wait until then as they already have my sample - that is if they do test for SNPs downstream of Z2105 (that is if I am positive; will know the results within the next week or so).

Can you tell me more information on Eurogenes Euro calculator and Dodecad K12b? I am unaware of their service. Can I share my 67 y-line dna results with them and compare to others in their database? Will they be able to better pinpoint my european ancestry?

Thanks. I may take the test. I will not be able to compare my surname as there was an adoption. But I may be able to compare surnames whose Y line I match (I test 67 markers at FamilyTreeDNA) to others and also those that point to a certain geographic area as you mentioned. Then I can trace where my father was born, and see if there are matching surnames from that area.

Seems like Geno 2.0 will also be able to tell nationality; which may also help.

Geno 2.0 has replaced the deepClade test. The best result for the general research community would be the Geno 2.0 test. For yourself Geno might provide a higher resolution ancestral point of origin but probably nothing that would be genealogically relevant for your immediate paternal line searches. You could look in that geographic area for similar surnames and over time get them tested to see if you can establish a link.

I've tested family tree's ydna 67. Do you suggest testing Geno 2 or Family Tree's Deep Clade? I'm looking for links to my father's side because it is unknown beyond him. Which test is best for me and the community?

The Swiss Burkholder sample (L277+) is in the analysis phase for Geno 2.0 results. Within 3(?) weeks there will be a pool of SNPs to position in the L23 region.

Saje do you plan on testing for L584 and L277? Or are you going to wait for Gen2.0 results to be released?What are your results in Eurogenes Euro calculator or Dodecad K12b.

If you have 23andme or Familytreedna results you can upload them to the various Gedmatch calculators; and they will show groups you are related to. You can compare the results, and use the Oracle function. Some examples using my results

Those are my[Eastern Europe] results using the different calculators which are pretty much in line with other analysis[Dr McDonald- although he did find some Indian, as did one of the Dodecad runs, Kannada? and Gedrosia?; on a side note perhaps Balkans Z2105 made it as far as, Pakistan, India and China you never know].

Gen 2.0 will change things, so you might want to wait see what happens in the next few weeks.